Muslim & Christian Discussion ForumCurrently responding to>>> Quran vs. ChristThis is the most important point to clarify: Yes, the words in the Qur'an are uncreated speech of God, though the ink and parchment is created, the words themselves are not. Now you keep, to my disappointment, saying things like "the words are eternal" but you don't ever say what you mean by eternal. What about the words do you mean is eternal? The words are eternally TRUE as they reflect a portion of the will of God. What else could be "eternal" about the words besides the truth of the message they convey? Answer that question please since you keep using the word "Eternal". What about the words could be eternal besides the Truth of their Message? They aren't "temporally true" but they do exist in our world. That in itself shouldn't bother us as ETERNAL TRUTH can exist in our temporal world. It's just amazing how you caps lock "ETERNAL" But never say what you mean, to create effects like "ETERNAL YET TEMPORAL" haha. God's words are absolute Truth, and Truth is Eternal. Can Truth exist in the temporal world? Yes. Can Truth be encapsulated in a text and by ink? Yes. Is this the same as saying all of God's will exists subordinated to God's own created man? No. Because Gabriel is named and is ranked above the other angels, which aren't all named. They all perform God's will though, unless you believe that "the Spirit" is submissive to God's and is therefore subordinate to God. This makes sense for an angel, but not if you believe God is "the Spirit". "I never said he was greater" ?? Con-artistry at its worst. Akbar = Greater , but thanks for the lesson in Arabic, I can't believe what I have to deal with sometimes. You know if someone didn’t speak Arabic they would have actually believed you? This is probably what you were counting on. By the way, Kabeer = Great. When you're complaint is about the English TRANSLATION of the use of "may" then yes, we're going to turn to the dictionary for the English language. And important point is the indicated definition of may, what you're doing is showing that there is more than one definition for "may". Yes, that's true, so in essence you want to choose the definition that makes the verse incoherent. And of course, that's your choice, but know there's the other definition of "may" which was intended by Yusuf Ali. And most importantly, I summarized by most important points in my last post with: You used phrases like "what you don't seem to understand" 3 times, red herring 3 times, omitting straw men 3 times, (heh, very Trinitiarian) but never answered me. Except for stating this piece right here, which I can't even imagine how you typed it with a straight face:
Inspired or not, it is what you base your entire belief on: The belief that the Qur'an is the "word of God" is based on the "word of God" traceable back to the very Messenger who transmitted it. The belief that Jesus is the "word of God" is based on Scripture which is NOT eternal, created speech, of human authors, not linked back in an unbroken chain to Jesus himself, for hundreds of years. Yes, if they were written or recited by a Messenger of God of COURSE they would be God-breathed and inspired. That's what a Messenger is. This is something you'd have to believe if the Bible was a text authored or transmitted by Jesus (pbuh) himself. The most important question is staring you urgently in the face, even if you believe the Bible was inspired, how was it preserved since before Jesus (pbuh) ascended? Can it be linked by a chain of transmitters back to the words and actions of Jesus (pbuh)? Did Jesus (pbuh) ever authenticate what it says he said and did? These are all very simple questions with yes or no answers. "I know it's true, even though it was never authenticated by Jesus (pbuh) himself, because I believe the Scripture was God-inspired authored by God"…ok, and on what do you base THAT belief? So the Scriptures claim this of themselves. That in itself isn't unreasonable, if they were being transmitted by the Messenger of God in which you believe. That means that you believe that the original authors of the Bible are equivalent to Moses (pbuh). Not only that, but you now need to show that the Bible of today can be linked with a reliable chain of transmitters all the way back to the original "Messengers". Good luck with that. Every theological belief a human being has MUST go back to the Messenger it was sent with. So is your belief that the Bible is God-inspired a testament to your faith in its authors as Messengers of God, because they are after all determining your creed? If so, how do they prove they are Messengers of God and reliable? Moses (pbuh) certainly brought proofs, the Bible in itself is not a miraculous text to be its own proof. Try to answer the questions, don't "red herring"/"straw man"/ "you don't seem to understand" them away. Peace bro |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame